[at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking

[Tim Rich]

If I was a Democrat, I'd want to keep getting that "freedom fighter" money from Hamas and al Quaeda.  General Electric is an evil lord of the military industrial complex.  

It's terribly hard to write that with a straight face.


--- On Sun, 1/24/10, Jim and_or Ginny Owen <spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jim and_or Ginny Owen <spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking
> To: jplynch at crosslink.net, "at-l" <at-l at backcountry.net>
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 8:46 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> The outcry can be about anything anybody wants.  But
> it doesn't change the decision. 
> 
> Nor does it change the logic on which the decision was
> made.  Nor does it change the 
> 
> potential political consequences of a different Court
> decision.  
> 
>  
> 
> In fact, the decision does nothing more than to return the
> "money" situation to what it 
> 
> was prior to McCain-Feingold.  Which, frankly, was
> better than the situation during the 
> 
> last several elections.  I wonder if anyone here has
> any idea, for example, how much 
> 
> foreign money (read terrorist funds among others) was
> funneled into those elections 
> 
> via the 527's?  I wonder how many people would
> rather have their elections influenced 
> 
> by Hamas and al Quaeda than General Electric?  That,
> after all, is what is being argued for.  
> 
>  
> 
> Walk softly,
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: jplynch at crosslink.net
> To: spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com; at-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing
> VS Hiking
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:30:56 -0500
> 
> 
> 
> #yiv939701245 .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
> {padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-top:0px;}
> #yiv939701245 .ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage
> {font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;}
> 
> 
> I think the outcry is
> about political contributions.  I would be very upset
> if my local paper gave money to support a candidate. 
> Endorse him/her in editorials; fine.  But money is
> something else.  
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: Jim and_or
> Ginny Owen 
> To: at-l 
> Sent: Sunday, January
> 24, 2010 8:24 PM
> Subject: [at-l] OT -
> Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking
> 
> I won't be answering any particular post
> here - and in fact, I'm of two minds about this 
> subject. But I think there's a lot of misunderstanding
> about WHY the decision was made.  
> So I'm gonna drop a few selected quotes from a legal
> blog and let you think about them.  
> Which is what I'm doing - thinking about them.  
>  
> These quotes are not an expression of "my"
> opinion.  Nor are they an argument in favor 
> of the decision.  They ARE something that I've not
> heard argued by anybody here or on 
> any other hiking forum yet. And they NEED to be considered
> before too many people 
> shoot from the lip here. So....
>  
> >One of the standard arguments put forward by
> critics of the Supreme Court’s decision 
> >protecting corporate political speech in Citizens
> United is that people aren’t entitled to 
> >constitutional rights when they use corporate
> resources because corporations are 
> >“state-created entities.” 
>  
> >On this view, the government would be free to
> censor the New York Times, Fox News, 
> >the Nation, National Review, and so on. Nearly
> every newspaper and political journal in 
> >the country is a corporation.
>  
> >If people using state-created entities don’t have
> free speech rights, they don’t have 
> >any other constitutional rights either. After all,
> the supposed power to define the rights 
> >of state-created entities isn’t limited to free
> speech rights. Thus, government would not 
> >be bound by the Fourth Amendment in searching
> corporate property (including employee 
> >offices). It could take corporate property for
> private use without paying compensation 
> >because the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply.
> It could forbid religious services on 
> >corporate property (including that owned by
> churches, most of which are after all nonprofit 
> >corporations). If the Free Speech Clause of the
> First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporate 
> >property, neither does the Free Exercise Clause.
> And so on.
>  
> >So government could enact laws requiring citizens
> to limit their political speech in exactly 
> >the same ways in which corporate speech can be
> limited (or at least condition their continued 
> >status as citizens on obedience to the
> government’s censorship rules). 
>  
> Read the whole thing - 
> http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should-people-acting-through-corporations-be-denied-constitutional-rights-because-corporations-are-state-created-entities/
>  
> Finally - regardless of your agreement or disagreement, the
> decision was made.  Regardless of 
> the rhetoric from Obama, Senators, Congressmen, governors,
> whatever -  the decision was made.  
> And like Roe vs Wade, regardless of agreement or
> opposition, it's now the law of the land and we 
> all get to live with it.  There is no legislative
> "fix".  There is no administrative
> "fix".  Anyone who 
> tells you there is - is simply lying.  At least until
> this country becomes a dictatorship.  
> 
> Walk softly,
> Jim
> 
> http://www.spiriteaglehome.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>  		 	   		  
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>